We have a detailed article about the Crystalens accommodating
intraocular lens (IOL) on our website at http://www.USAEyes.org  Click
on | Considerations | Which Surgery For You? | Crystalens |

There has not been a tremendous amount of news since March '06. One
study suggested the lens does not actually move as was theorized, but
some accommodation does occur for some patients.

Posterior Capsule Opacification (OCP) is supposed to be reduce with a
slightly new design, but the physics of IOLs would indicate that a
Crystalens is likely to do nothing to slow or stop OCP. The treatment
for OCP is to use a laser to create a hole in the posterior capsule,
however this may have an effect on the ability of the Crystalens to
accommodate.

There have been some difficulties with implantation and positioning,
but nothing that is out of what one would consider the norm for a new
technology.

Keep in mind that the most accommodation you would get with Crystalens
is about 1.50 diopters, and that would be if everything goes well.
Take a look at the number on your reading glasses. If it is more than
1.50, then you will still be needing reading glasses for close work,
but possibly not as often with Crystalens.

You should also take a close look at monovision correction. Go to our
website at http://www.USAEyes.org  Click on | Considerations | Which
Surgery For You? | Monovision |

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

That might have been me, but I haven't seen any more than the one I
reported on.  I did read an article recently that made this
observation:  The theoretical focusing amount is related to the iol
power, because the higher the lens power, the greater the power shift as
the lens moves. This means that for eyes that have been highly myopic,
any functionality will be reduced, as the iol power is lower for these
longer eyes.  Converse for highly hyperopic eyes.  These shorter eyes
need stronger lenses so they should get more bang for the buck.

I still think the lens doesn't work very well, since the one eye I saw
that had one didn't focus at all, and it appeared to be perfectly
installed.  I don't think the hinges will wear out as I don't think much
flexure if any is really going on.

I would not have one put in my eye, even if it were free.

w.stacy, o.d.

The Eye Care Forum at Med Help International contains some fascinating
recent threads about the Crystalens, ReStor and ReZoom lenses.  Based
on my reading of this info, I'd definitely choose a monofocal aspheric
IOL (such as the AMO Tecnis lens) over any of the above.  An industry
insider posted that the "best" aspheric for a particular person can be
determined by means of wavefront and Q-scan testing, but I'm not sure
who is doing this type of testing.

The Eye Care Forum at Med Help International contains some fascinating
recent threads about the Crystalens, ReStor and ReZoom lenses.  Based
on my reading of this info, I'd definitely choose a monofocal aspheric
IOL (such as the AMO Tecnis lens) over any of the above.  An industry
insider posted that the "best" aspheric for a particular person can be
determined by means of wavefront and Q-scan testing, but I'm not sure
who is doing this type of testing.

Simple.

A patient should be thouroughly educated about the pros and the cons
of those lenses.  It would be nice to be able to speak to patients who
have actually had the IOLs implanted.

I wouldn't expect that to be an issue.

I think that ophthalmologist is wise.

I don't think, in the vast majority of cases, the surgeon *should*
choose which IOL to use if a patient is an equally good candidate for
either lens.  He should thoroughly educate you and you should make the
decision.

Rather than have him choose, why not ask him, "If you were me, which
IOL would you have implanted in your eye?"  That is a subtle, yet
important distinction, which lets you know what he thinks without
making him decide for you.

I know, if I had a choice between a monofocal IOL and a Crystalens, I
would choose the Crystalens.  Just make sure your surgeon is
well-experienced in using Crystalens as it is certainly requires more
skill for a successful outcome than a standard monofocal IOL.

Realistically, the worst thing a person that has a Crystalens
successfully implanted in their eyes will say is that, "I sure wish
this lens would work better.".  IOW, worst-case scenario, it is no
better or worse than a monofocal IOL.  And in a best-case scenario,
you will get about +1.25D of accommodation in the long-run.

OTOH, a person who has say a ReSTOR or ReZoom successfully surgically
impanted runs the real risk of complaining of halos (ReZoom) or acuity
that is inferior (ReSTOR) to a monofocal IOL.

I have heard of several patients who had the ReSTOR or ReZoom lenses
successfully implanted, but found these side effects intolerable and
had them exchanged for standard monofocal IOLs.  OTOH, although I
don't doubt they exist, I don't know anyone who had a successful
Crystalens implanted that wanted it exchanged for a different style of
IOL.